DescentBB

Hehe, Ferno. I was screwing with you. But in all seriousness, both the claim that marriage has multiple "definitions" in the OT, and the idea that homosexuality being an abomination is somehow constrained to OT law are totally bogus. I just thought I'd have some fun with it, because I don't expect to get any satisfaction from the argument itself.

CUDA wrote:after reading the article it really said nothing. I could say that Homosexuality is caused by a combination of Hormones in the milk we drink, single mother households and as sense of inadequacy around women and say as much as that article said, just because your left handed and have a counterclockwise swirl in your hair doesn't make you Gay or even tend to be Gay. if that was the case my father-in law, both my brother-in laws and 2 of my sons would be gay.because they are all left handed and have a counterclockwise swirl to their hair and none were a first child

That's...not what that article is saying at all. The study found that homosexual males happen to share certain biological traits in greater frequency in the general population, not that anyone with those same traits will have a homosexual orientation. The article also notes that identical twins experience a higher incidence of homosexuality than fraternal twins, which is kind of a big flashing neon "Genetics Alert!" sign. There have also been multiple studies showing that the children of same-sex parents aren't any more or less likely to be homosexual than the children of opposite-sex parents. And unless you've performed peer-reviewed studies that implicate milk hormones or single-parent households, no, you couldn't say that and be taken seriously.

Really, you can keep trying to worm your way around it all you want, but it still doesn't change the truth. Homosexuality isn't Ralph Wiggum waking up one day and deciding, "I like men now!" It's a combination of inherent genetics and prenatal environmental factors, and the end result is a preference that's as natural to the individual as which hand they write with. Y'see, that's the fun thing about science: it doesn't give a ★■◆● what other people choose to believe about results, only what the truth of those results are. If you want to believe that homosexuals make a conscious choice to like other dudes or chicks, or that the Earth was created 6000 years ago, or whatever, go right ahead, but that leaves the rest of us free to laugh at you for being dead wrong. And from where I'm sitting, if your religious beliefs directly contradict basic facts about the world...well, maybe it's time to re-examine those beliefs.

A team of British and Japanese researchers has found that worms undergo genetic changes and live longer when they are taken to space.

It would seem that genetic changes can occur rapidly and are not "fixed" as everyone is trying to suggest.

That has what to do with the price of tea in China, exactly?

Homosexuality isn't Ralph Wiggum waking up one day and deciding, "I like men now!

Ironically both men that I mentioned were at one time married before they chose to engage in the Homosexual lifestyle one of them has a son. so they both woke up one day an "I like men now" so that apparently shoot that statement in the foot.

Who's talking about tea? Seeing as how humans are in control of their own psyche's and genetics can change almost spontaneously, I think it goes more towards personal responsibility and conscientiousness than some propensity.

CUDA wrote:

Homosexuality isn't Ralph Wiggum waking up one day and deciding, "I like men now!

Ironically both men that I mentioned were at one time married before they chose to engage in the Homosexual lifestyle one of them has a son. so they both woke up one day an "I like men now" so that apparently shoot that statement in the foot.

There's a big difference between "choosing" something overnight and coming to the realization that your sexuality is a bit more complicated than you thought. I'm sure if you talked to either of those men, they'd be able to tell you about all sorts of thoughts and feelings they'd had over the years that may not have meant much to them at the time, but have a lot of significance in retrospect. Really, when you step back and think about it, in what scenario would a person just say to themselves one day, "You know what, I'm just gonna go ★■◆● another dude, because why not?" The whole idea of homosexuality being a "choice" doesn't make any rational sense.

Oh, and way to completely ignore the actual substance of my post in favor of a throwaway one-liner.

flip wrote:Who's talking about tea? Seeing as how humans are in control of their own psyche's and genetics can change almost spontaneously, I think it goes more towards personal responsibility and conscientiousness than some propensity.

Genetics don't "spontaneously change." (*insert WINDMILLS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY! here*) The little wormy guys in space had different genes being expressed/suppressed based on environmental changes; the underlying code was exactly the same. And again, this has nothing to do with the current conversation. You really need to stop link-diving on topics you don't have a good grasp of.

The little wormy guys in space had different genes being expressed/suppressed based on environmental changes; the underlying code was exactly the same.

I want a CRC check on the code . I understand these things quite well TG. I can't help you cannot see all the possibilities. No need to get snippy about it

EDIT: Just for the hell of it, Since people can control their desires and moods, is it also not possible that certain genes can be expressed/suppressed by certain thought processes? We already know this is possible in space, an environmental change but the body itself is an environment too .

What do you mean by that, exactly? Seeing possibilities that don't exist because they're not real? Gene expression is something we know a great deal amount (though there's certainly more to learn), and what was going on in those worms wasn't exactly anything earth-shattering.

flip wrote:What about bi-sexuals? Are they just terminally confused to their sexual orientation?

I've read so little research on that as to have no clue what's going on there.

See that makes the most sense then, TO YOU it's not earth-shattering.

callmeslick wrote:

flip wrote:What about bi-sexuals? Are they just terminally confused to their sexual orientation?

I've read so little research on that as to have no clue what's going on there.

Heh, yeah it prevents any hope for a real mathematical constant here

flip wrote:A team of British and Japanese researchers has found that worms undergo genetic changes and live longer when they are taken to space.

It would seem that genetic changes can occur rapidly and are not "fixed" as everyone is trying to suggest.

there are changes in the DNA(slow process to select through) and changes in the expression of the genes there already(immediate change in effect). Not enough time, nor energy to explain the mechanics, but it seems the latter is what is going on there, Flip.

flip wrote:Who's talking about tea? Seeing as how humans are in control of their own psyche's and genetics can change almost spontaneously, I think it goes more towards personal responsibility and conscientiousness than some propensity.

then, you had better re-think, or simply accept that you have no clue how this stuff works.

Well, I guess it's safe to say it's happening at a pretty rapid rate as soon as the environment changes .

EDIT: It sucks how limiting this medium is for conveying a point. Trust me, in real life it is much more credible of an argument, but forums ,because of time constraints, really prevent the use of many different examples. I'll leave it at that I guess.

CUDA wrote:

Homosexuality isn't Ralph Wiggum waking up one day and deciding, "I like men now!

Ironically both men that I mentioned were at one time married before they chose to engage in the Homosexual lifestyle one of them has a son. so they both woke up one day an "I like men now" so that apparently shoot that statement in the foot.

remember the part I wrote about societal, religious and family pressure to repress an inner tendency? It's called 'coming out' and consists of acknowledging something the person knew or suspected about him/herself since puberty or before. Very common, and changes nothing about the nature or reality. One of the first gay men I ever discussed this stuff with was closeted, and married with a couple of kids before coming out at age 55 or so. It wasn't like he decided to change teams, he had just tried to conform to allow himself a 'normal' life with job security, no fear of police harassment, etc.

Yeah, or they fixated on it long enough that minute genetic changes occurred over time and they became full blown homo-sexuals.

EDIT: Or do you think some children are born criminals? They say that there are genetic differences in criminals and serial killers. Are these damned from eternity from the get-go, or is it because everytime they were presented with something evil and good, they chose the evil. That leading to them actually becoming criminal in their wiring with little hope for change then.

flip wrote:Well, I guess it's safe to say it's happening at a pretty rapid rate as soon as the environment changes .

EDIT: It sucks how limiting this medium is for conveying a point. Trust me, in real life it is much more credible of an argument, but forums ,because of time constraints, really prevent the use of many different examples. I'll leave it at that I guess.

trust me, friend, that cuts both ways. Had we the time or the bandwidth, I could easily convince you that your take(and Cuda's) is not plausible, along with the flow of data that has been accumulated on the subject. As you say, we live with the limitations of the medium and hope for the best.

flip wrote:Yeah, or they fixated on it long enough that minute genetic changes occurred over time and they became full blown homo-sexuals.

you cannot change sexual orientation, nor can you show one shred of data or evidence that such can be done. Neither can you show that GENETICS is altered in an individual. You can show that expression of genes can be altered by environmental stresses, but certainly no proot that I am aware of that such can be changed by willpower or the like. The fact is, every single gay man and virtually all lesbian women I have known were aware of their lack of desire for the opposite sex by puberty. How they attempted to deal with that varied with each individual, but they ALL knew. I am not talking about two or three. I must know a hundred or more gay people(hell, I was a fine art minor and have spent chunks of my adult life hanging out in art galleries in Lower Manhatten for the past 3 decades or more), so this isn't a small survey group involved. Trust me, in the 80's in the Village, it was a topic all discussed, as the nature of being homosexual seemed to also doom them to AIDS, or so it seemed, as the details of the disease weren't understood at the time.......

Well, these changes can definitely be passed on but that goes to a whole nother discussion. What explains the genetic "changes" in criminals and psychopaths? Are they doomed to criminal behavior?

No, but there may be certain genetically-induced mental disorders that could predispose someone to criminal activities. This whole line of conversation is moot, though, as by attempting to compare tendencies of criminal behavior with who someone is physically attracted to, you're kind of suggesting that homosexuality itself is akin to illegal behavior.

And flip, you cannot change your physical genetic code by just thinking a certain way. Like, that's so far outside the realm of plausibility I don't even know where to start with it.

I'm not comparing homosexuality to criminal behavior, I'm asking what is responsible for the genetic changes that drive certain behaviors. Actually I'm not asking because I actually have a base I'm driving from . Seems the other side is content to say "that's just the way it is" and walk off none the wiser.

A less obvious component of emotion is the set of internal bodily changes caused by the smooth muscles and glands. Chemicals secreted by the body's various glands are activated during emotion and spread to other parts of the body, usually by the blood, to act in diverse ways on the nervous system and other organs. Smooth muscles of the digestive system, circulatory system, and other bodily components can shift from their typical level or type of operation during emotion under the effects of chemical and neural action. This component includes some behaviors that can be observed, such as the constriction or dilation of the iris of the eye, possibly piloerection, and sweating, blanching, and flushing of the skin, and other responses that are relatively hidden, such as heart rate, stomach activity, and saliva production.

I am saying that a person living a destructive lifestyle will also be carrying around excessive amounts of chemicals released in the body. This resulting chemical imbalance changes the environment of the body, and prolonged starts to mimic heart attacks and great anxiety. This could also lead to expression/repression of certain sequences.

CUDA wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:And why are you taking such exception to my rants about Christian activists (not Christians personally)? I'm not attacking you personally, only the actions of political activists who happen to be Christian.

are you saying Christians do not have the right to be politically active?? LGBT and Nambla are political activist groups. are you calling for discrimination against Christians?

I thought being liberal was all about being tolerant of someone else view points. Is tolerance only a one way street?

CUDA, I'm not against Christians having advocacy in Washington. If they want to look out for their own political interests, that's their right and yes, necessity. That's right, a necessity. But when that advocacy becomes a concerted effort to marginalize, squelch, or suppress the interests and rights of another group of people, all because they believe that group is amoral or sinful in their eyes, not unlawful mind you, that's where I take exception. Not everyone believes in the Bible, it's not the law of the land, so it should not be thrown over everyone like a blanket. It's a free nation, not a theocracy. I'm not against you or your family following it in your own lives. It's your free will.

Think about if things were reversed. What would you say if some powerful, well financed, popular secularist group decided religion was bad for the nation, that it corrupted people and warped their minds away from more productive endeavors, that it should be banned and their adherents hidden away, reprogrammed or put to death? Say they started an all out a well financed and backed populist campaign, a war to sway the minds of the voters, against all religion, on the grounds that religion is just nonsensical magical thinking and that in an intellectual and educated society, people doesn't need nonsensical magical thinking? If you think I'm crazy, remember the Soviet Union.

Now you'll say, "But it's a lifestyle choice, and lifestyle choices don't deserve special rights or favors". This is where is disagree, because research is starting to show homosexuality may not be a "lifestyle choice", but a human trait. But even if you insist it IS a "lifestyle choice", the same can be applied to people of any religious affiliation. It's your "lifestyle choice" to live as a Christian, or Muslim, or Buddhist, or Hindu, or even Mormon. You weren't necessarily born that way, and yet you have far more rights and privileges than any member of the LGBT community. Just as an exception was made for "magical thinking", ie., religiosity, in the DSM, meaning it's not considered a mental disorder, the trait of homosexuality is also no longer considered a mental disorder either. Religion needs to modernize like medicine has.

As for NAMBLA, they should have no say in Washington for one very simple reason, underage children have no consent, period. Their efforts to change the age of consent laws are perverse. People that crave sex with children or teens are maladjusted individuals that never grew up into adulthood mentally and should be treated as mentally ill and sick, heterosexual OR homosexual.

TunnelCat wrote:Think about if things were reversed. What would you say if some powerful, well financed, popular secularist group decided religion was bad for the nation, that it corrupted people and warped their minds away from more productive endeavors, that it should be banned and their adherents hidden away, reprogrammed or put to death? Say they started an all out a well financed and backed populist campaign, a war to sway the minds of the voters, against all religion, on the grounds that religion is just nonsensical magical thinking and that in an intellectual and educated society, people doesn't need nonsensical magical thinking? If you think I'm crazy, remember the Soviet Union.

I'd like to take a moment and point out that this is not at all what I would call a solution, were the subject turned back from religion to homosexuality. I find it interesting that you take it so far ("reprogrammed or put to death"). People have a certain degree of freedom that no one has a right to infringe upon, to determine their own way, to the degree that it does not harm their neighbor. I think going in and criticizing another person's life is something that should be dealt with very carefully, because we're all equal before God. Did you know, that I consider "religion" to be a very negative thing? Religion is a trap, for many people, and people use it to take advantage of others. For many people their religion takes precedence over their reason in a very negative way. Just to throw out a quick general example, most people believe what their church tells them about the Bible, when the Bible in the pew in from of them plainly says something else. Back in the day the church kept the source from them altogether, by resisting the translation of the Bible from Latin to the common tongue. The Bible is full of warnings about religion. On the other hand, people like Ferno's George Carlin offend reason in their efforts, which go beyond disdain for what I've mentioned, into spite for the very idea of God (not an unusual condition--we are rebellious by nature, but that doesn't make it right).

...And I'm out of time, so I'll try to finish my point later.

Essentially, the chemicals that flood the brain during the trauma do so in order to help the person to survive the event, either by running away, or fighting furiously. A third option, to submit to the trauma also has brain chemistry implications. In some individuals, once the brain goes through this chemical ‘rewiring’ to survive the trauma, the wiring stays that way.

I know this seems unrelated to the discussion but it's not.

Think about if things were reversed. What would you say if some powerful, well financed, popular secularist group decided religion was bad for the nation,

you mean groups like the ACLU, the Religious freedom watch, and the Freedom from Religion Foundation. just to name a couple?

CUDA wrote:

Think about if things were reversed. What would you say if some powerful, well financed, popular secularist group decided religion was bad for the nation,

you mean groups like the ACLU, the Religious freedom watch, and the Freedom from Religion Foundation. just to name a couple?

um, that's three, but who's counting? Still, CUDA, none of those groups has(that I know of) attempted anything of the sort that was given in the hypothetical example.

callmeslick wrote:

CUDA wrote:

Think about if things were reversed. What would you say if some powerful, well financed, popular secularist group decided religion was bad for the nation,

you mean groups like the ACLU, the Religious freedom watch, and the Freedom from Religion Foundation. just to name a couple?

um, that's three, but who's counting? Still, CUDA, none of those groups has(that I know of) attempted anything of the sort that was given in the hypothetical example.

I'm guessing you missed the part where I wrote "just to name a couple"

here is her example

Think about if things were reversed. What would you say if some powerful, well financed, popular secularist group decided religion was bad for the nation, that it corrupted people and warped their minds away from more productive endeavors, that it should be banned and their adherents hidden away, reprogrammed or put to death? Say they started an all out a well financed and backed populist campaign, a war to sway the minds of the voters, against all religion, on the grounds that religion is just nonsensical magical thinking and that in an intellectual and educated society, people doesn't need nonsensical magical thinking? If you think I'm crazy, remember the Soviet Union.

intentional denial and ignorance doesn't suit you slick. that is exactly what those 3 groups I listed do.

CUDA, I did catch your phrase,"....to name a couple" and was simply busting stones on the 3 vs 2 business. On the serious substance, your quote bears me out. None of those groups has, or would dare have, suggested that Christians be sequestered or put to death for their beliefs. To think otherwise is to delude oneself.

callmeslick wrote:CUDA, I did catch your phrase,"....to name a couple" and was simply busting stones on the 3 vs 2 business.

Sorry, not having the best day. had an employee leave me hanging last week, well he showed up on Saturday to get his tools, My department was closed but service was open. so he had access to the shop. and he walked off with a brand new $500+ paint just that I just bought. so I've got to deal with that. but on a positive note. I have his final check for almost $900.00 and Two of his personal vehicles if he doesn't bring it back

On the serious substance, your quote bears me out. None of those groups has, or would dare have, suggested that Christians be sequestered or put to death for their beliefs. To think otherwise is to delude oneself.

please show me where any legitimate Christian advocacy groups are calling for the sequestering and death of anyone. just a slightly out-there off the wall example don't you think?

Geez. CUDA, you are having a rough spell. First the gun-toting loon, now this latest character. I would suggest hiring someone different to do background checks and character analysis of new hires......

Back on topic, I wasn't suggesting that Christian groups are doing any such things. You had responded to a 'what if' idea that posited such extreme ideas. I don't really think anyone is going as far as that analogy, but a lot of the Christian Right has been trying to legislate the behaviors of which they don't approve into criminality, whereas no one, to my knowledge is pressuring for Christianity to be outlawed. The only example of dire behavior would be in Africa, specifically Uganda, where homosexuality is a capital offense, IIRC.

Sorry Slickster but Islamic law and the Koran frowns mightily on Homosexuality:

Qur'an (7:80-84) - "...For ye practice your lusts on men in preference to women: ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds.... And we rained down on them a shower (of brimstone)" - An account that is borrowed from the Biblical story of Sodom. Muslim scholars through the centuries have interpreted the "rain of stones" on the town as meaning that homosexuals should be stoned, since no other reason is given for the people's destruction. (The story is also repeated in suras 27 and 29).

And unless I've misinterpreted you, the Arabic countries go out of their way to discourage Christianity.

CUDA wrote:

Think about if things were reversed. What would you say if some powerful, well financed, popular secularist group decided religion was bad for the nation,

you mean groups like the ACLU, the Religious freedom watch, and the Freedom from Religion Foundation. just to name a couple?

And those groups have affected your religion HOW? I see you still have the right to go to church and worship in freedom. I see you still have the church buildings themselves. They haven't been burned down by anti-religious nutcases with an agenda.

ST, the "reprogramming I'm referring to goes on in religious circles all the time. It's called "ex gay conversion therapy". It's immoral and doesn't work. But that doesn't stop them from trying it.

http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/201 ... y_cure.php

The state of California is going to try and outlaw it for children.

http://ricochet.com/main-feed/Californi ... For-Minors

So I see woody does agree with Islam on homosexuality. But Islam is so sexually repressed, they force their women to cover their faces. I see a pattern here.............. By the way, Muslims DO put homosexuals to death. I know Fred Phelps would like to do it as well, and he's a "Christian".

Ummm...TC, you know I love ya but where did I say I agree with Islamic law?

Thanks, I'm touched. Well, I may have connected too many dots with your dislike of Islam AND homosexuality. Agreement in kind? Apologies.

Fair enough.

woodchip wrote:Sorry Slickster but Islamic law and the Koran frowns mightily on Homosexuality:

Qur'an (7:80-84) - "...For ye practice your lusts on men in preference to women: ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds.... And we rained down on them a shower (of brimstone)" - An account that is borrowed from the Biblical story of Sodom. Muslim scholars through the centuries have interpreted the "rain of stones" on the town as meaning that homosexuals should be stoned, since no other reason is given for the people's destruction. (The story is also repeated in suras 27 and 29).

And unless I've misinterpreted you, the Arabic countries go out of their way to discourage Christianity.

fair enough distinction.....still, let's be honest, the point of discussion in THIS country.

flip wrote:Essentially, the chemicals that flood the brain during the trauma do so in order to help the person to survive the event, either by running away, or fighting furiously. A third option, to submit to the trauma also has brain chemistry implications. In some individuals, once the brain goes through this chemical ‘rewiring’ to survive the trauma, the wiring stays that way.

I know this seems unrelated to the discussion but it's not.

are you really trying to tell us suffering a trauma would make one change gender attraction?

WOW.

No, that's not what I'm saying at all